Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> > > Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:05:07 +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> > >
> > > > So, maybe you can briefly comment on whether your current code
> > > > stays within Haskell 98 or not.
> > >
> > > It only relies on multiparametric type classes.
> > >
> > > Of course it uses primitive ghc operations that it is a wrapper for,
> > > and libraries like CTypes, or PrelIOBase for exception constructors.
> >
> > CTypes is ok, because it part of the FFI. However, I don't
> > see much point in a marshalling that uses multi-parameter
> > classes and specifics of ghc's implementation of IO.
> >
> > In a sense, it is a pity because these things might be
> > available in the next version of Haskell. But until then,
> > as Haskell needs portable library bindings, I think, we
> > shouldn't make any use of such features.
>
> I agree to some extent, but I don't think we should discount the possiblity
> of using this approach in the future.
Sure - but we also should have something stable *and*
portable now.
> Would it be possible to decouple this into a basic marshalling library
> without typed pointers, with Marcin's framework built on top? Seems that
> would keep most people happy - I imagine the lower level layer providing
> basic marshalling facilities in much the same way as Manuel's marshalling
> library in c2hs.
There are at least two more marshalling libraries in the
game. The one of Volker Wysk and Sven has stuff and Michael
Weber, I think, also. Could maybe everybody who has code to
contribute raise their hand?
We should really get the best of all of them. If possible
and we can have a basic library, which conforms to Haskell
90 + basic FFI plus a more advanced experimental one, which
uses additional features, that would be cool.
Moreover, with all the overloading stuff, we have to keep
an eye on performance.
Cheers,
Manuel
